CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Berrys Carehome
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 13 November 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found good practice. The home encouraged visitors to use extra protective equipment, supported COVID-19 testing and seasonal injections, and used longer staff shifts to reduce the number of people entering the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks appropriately. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a usual overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
The home encouraged visiting professionals to use extra protective equipment to reduce infection risks.
“The service actively encourages professionals visiting the service to wear additional PPE when onsite to prevent cross-infection risks to staff and people living there.” from the report
Testing and injections
People were supported with COVID-19 testing and seasonal preventative injections. There were risk assessments for people who refused these because of behaviours that may challenge others.
“People living in the service are supported to have COVID19 testing and seasonal preventative injections.” from the report
Reduced staff footfall
Longer staff shifts were used to reduce the number of staff entering the home and lower infection risks.
“Staff shift patterns have been extended to longer days to reduce staff footfall in the service and minimise risks to people living there.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for visitors, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently expected to use protective equipment when they enter the home?
- 02How do you support people who refuse COVID-19 testing or seasonal injections, and how are risks monitored?
- 03Are longer staff shifts still being used to reduce the number of people entering the home?
- 04How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
- 05What arrangements are in place now to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was an announced thematic inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor record-keeping and training improvements needed.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 21 December 2018. They spoke with two people living there, one staff member, the provider and the service director. They reviewed three care files, four staff records, medicines information, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, kind care, activities suited to people's interests and systems for checking the quality of the service.
The report also identified minor improvements. These included making some risk instructions and care plans clearer, strengthening some medicines records, checking gaps in employment histories, and completing or recording required staff training. This was the home's first inspection since it was newly registered.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed relationships between people and staff. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and support
Staffing levels and deployment were suitable for people's needs, including supporting their chosen activities. Safeguarding and recruitment arrangements were also in place.
“The deployment of staff was suitable to meet people's care and support needs in line with information documented within their care plan” from the report
Activities and community life
People had weekly schedules based on their preferences, including day centres, shopping, bowling, swimming and activities at home.
“People had access to transport to enable ease of community access.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements. The views collected in 2018 were positive.
“Information was collected and recorded to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Risk instructions were not always clear
minorSome risk assessments did not clearly record the actions staff should take to reduce risks. The registered manager was told minor improvements were needed.
“The registered manager was advised that minor improvements were required to ensure the actions to be taken by staff to mitigate these risks were clearly recorded.” from the report
Some medicines records needed strengthening
needs fixingPRN medicines protocols were not as robust as they should be, and topical cream application was not routinely recorded. The home was also reminded to monitor medicines storage temperatures.
“Where people were prescribed 'as required' medication, PRN protocols were not as robust as they should be” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingTwo staff had not completed the Care Certificate despite not having the stated alternative qualifications at the time. The provider later said they had attained an NVQ and were awaiting certificates.
“Improvements were required as two members of staff had not completed the 'Care Certificate' following their employment” from the report
Care plans could be more personal
minorCare plans covered people's needs, but some information about how staff should provide care was not sufficiently person-centred.
“Minor improvements were required to ensure information recorded was person-centred” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record the actions staff must take for each person's specific risks?
- 02How do you now record PRN medicines, topical creams and medicines storage temperatures?
- 03Have all staff completed the required induction or obtained the relevant alternative qualifications?
- 04How have you made care plans more person-centred and clear about how care should be provided?
- 05How do you use people's views and staff feedback to check that care remains suitable?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions; SOFI observations were not used because one person was absent and two people were away at day services for most of the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of The Berrys Carehome
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.